Jump to content

Grandview Heights/Coose Hollow Condo Complex


Mith242

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yes please post images of this development at Photobucket.com, Flickr.com. The only pic I've seen is a worthless little thumbnail.

Yeah I should have actually posted some links. Flickr has been impressing me more lately. The only drawback is that they have a monthly limit. I know this may come to a surprise to some people but I tend to post a lot of pics. :lol: Photobucket and Image Shack make you answer a lot of annoying questions and such. But they all have disadvantages. Photobucket tends to shrink down your photos and Image Shack only lets you upload one pic at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here's the guy to blame for losing our Beaver Lake Condos... The Beaver Lake Watchdog

Someone needs to throw that doggy a bone... just throw it really, really far. :D

Unless I've missed something I don't think they're lost yet. I think there's a good chance they'll still go up, even if it's at a 15 story height instead of 25. But it might take a while with all this litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He needs to go back to Michigan.

I think the condos will still pass, it's just going to take a while, due to distractions!! The first one will be 15 Floors, and I think the others will be 25 Floors.

Up with Condos, down with Miltich!! :D

I'm not sure if the next two will be 25 stories. They'll still have to go in front of the planning board won't they? I still imagine that Miltich and the homeowners will oppose any future development including the future two towers for Grandview Heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the next two will be 25 stories. They'll still have to go in front of the planning board won't they? I still imagine that Miltich and the homeowners will oppose any future development including the future two towers for Grandview Heights.

Yes, and the board members have all said that they would vote the same. Even the one who was absent the day of the planning review said he would allow the condos. I'm almost positive these are going to be built at 25 floors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and the board members have all said that they would vote the same. Even the one who was absent the day of the planning review said he would allow the condos. I'm almost positive these are going to be built at 25 floors.

That's certainly good to hear. But they might want to do it as soon as possible before something else happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's certainly good to hear. But they might want to do it as soon as possible before something else happens.

Agreed.

My guess is that E&S Properties is formulating a much better strategy for the remainig condos, not to mention fighting the lawsuit against them and the planning commission. It will be atleast 6 months before we hear if the rest are approved or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Condos look great, but I wonder if the market would be able to support that kind of development. I guess it would take a while to build them but Im still skeptacle. Im from Springfield and there is always new Condo and Hotel developments going on in our area. For instance 20 minuets south of Springfield, Hammons is building an 18 story 5 star hotel called the Charlevoix (which will include a 5 star spa) next to the existing 10 story Chateau On the Lake. This looks amazing! (as if the Chateau wasn't good enough)

The Charlevoix

The Chateau on the Lake

In addition to these fine developments there will be a 12 story Hilton Hotel along with two 4 story Luxury Condo towers, and Penthouse Condominiums. There will be a 14 story Branson landing hotel and many other Luxury Condos.

Branson Landing(check this website out it is awsome!)

In Downtown Springfield Hammons is planning a 30 story office building and a 22-28 floor Doubletree Hotel.

I will try to find more info on these buildings.

Soon Branson (Taney and Stone Counties) will join Springfield in the Metropolitan Population and will bring us to over 550,000 people in the metro area.(wow) 15 years ago we were at like just over 200,000 thousand.

We will then be called the Springfield Branson MSA.

Please reply.

community1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Condos look great, but I wonder if the market would be able to support that kind of development. I guess it would take a while to build them but Im still skeptacle. Im from Springfield and there is always new Condo and Hotel developments going on in our area. For instance 20 minuets south of Springfield, Hammons is building an 18 story 5 star hotel called the Charlevoix (which will include a 5 star spa) next to the existing 10 story Chateau On the Lake. This looks amazing! (as if the Chateau wasn't good enough)

The Charlevoix

The Chateau on the Lake

In addition to these fine developments there will be a 12 story Hilton Hotel along with two 4 story Luxury Condo towers, and Penthouse Condominiums. There will be a 14 story Branson landing hotel and many other Luxury Condos.

Branson Landing(check this website out it is awsome!)

In Downtown Springfield Hammons is planning a 30 story office building and a 22-28 floor Doubletree Hotel.

I will try to find more info on these buildings.

Soon Branson (Taney and Stone Counties) will join Springfield in the Metropolitan Population and will bring us to over 550,000 people in the metro area.(wow) 15 years ago we were at like just over 200,000 thousand.

We will then be called the Springfield Branson MSA.

Please reply.

community1.jpg

I don't see any problem at all with there being enough support. There's a pretty good condo craze going on in Fayetteville and I don't think it will be long before it moves to Rogers and Bentonville. The bigger problem is with people used to living in a more rural setting having to get used to a rapidly growing urban area near them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope they dont allow the high rises on the lake.

In my view, its the beginning of the end of what makes Beaver Lake beautiful.

Its pretty short sighted to allow high rises to take advantage of the view, when in the process you are ruining what drew you there in the first place. Its not like oceanfront condos. The ocean has its own charm and beauty and the view is in one direction. Beaver Lake's beauty is that it is a mountain lake surrounded by green hills. Its not an urban lake.

I favor the conservationists.

These developers do not care about NWA. They are there, from NYC, to make a quick buck.

I feel like some people want concrete and glass, no matter where, and no matter what. I wonder why those people do not live in larger cities with much less natural open space. Lord knows there are plenty of cities like that to chose from.

There are also city/county leaders, and other government officials whose egos will get a boost if they get a high rise in their jurisidiction. It will make them feel like they are big fish in a slightly bigger, more important pond.

Treasures like Beaver Lake enhance the quality of life in NWA and deserve protection.

(cue Joni Mitchell)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your point and I do think areas of the lake do need to be preserved but I don't have any problems with trying to develop at least one area of the lake. I wouldn't mind seeing a sort of development like the Branson Landing over on Beaver Lake. I guess I'd just like to see some sort of development along the lake. I much prefer this than the usual answer of putting in a huge subdivision. That was one of the reasons the condo buildings were selected rather than a large housing subdivision. It just seems a bit unrealistic to me that none of Beaver Lake can be developed, especially when it's rather close to the metro. I prefer a compromise, allowing some development to occur at certain points and leaving and preserving much of the rest of the lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone (I can't remember who) said it best here recently when he said it's actually more conservational to build high-rise condos in certain areas of Beaver Lake rather than all the single-family houses surrounding all of Beaver Lake. A couple points he made was:

  • The condos would have a safer single septic system versus the hundreds of small septic systems of the single-family houses that actually pose a greater risk to the watershed

  • Less trees would be chopped down and less coastline would be impacted by the condos versus the hundreds of single-family houses

I don't think it's right that someone moved here from Michigan (or wherever), buys a house on Beaver Lake then spends all his free time keeping other people from similar opportunites to enjoy living on Beaver Lake.

Besides, the condos probably would never be seen by most people visiting Beaver Lake and wouldn't affect the beauty of Beaver Lake any more than the hundreds of houses poking through the trees along the coastline. Maybe they should start demolishing some of the houses around Beaver Lake and plant some trees to restore some lost beauty to Beaver Lake.

Also, the water quality of Beaver Lake has been going downhill and the condos can't be blamed for that as they haven't even been built yet. Maybe if we got rid of some of the houses with substandard septic systems around Beaver Lake our water quality might improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weird I'm pretty sure I posted a response here and I don't see it. Well anyway I was basically saying I'd like to see a couple of area be more developed on the lake. Maybe do some more around the Grandview Heights since we're already going to have that. Maybe another area or two located near the metro. It looks like they're doing a good job trying to preserve some areas around the southern end of the lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was the one who mentioned that it would be better to the land and enviorment to build 20 Floor towers, instead of several hundred home subdivisions. :D

I hadn't really considered that. Water quality issues are very important and anything to improve Beaver Lake's level of water clarity I am all for. When I was a kid it had very clear water, and now its all just dirty looking.

It is a large lake, and I suppose that allowing some high rises wouldn't spoil the views of the vast majority of the lake.

I just feel a slippery slope here, and I'd hate for a larger portion of the area near the lake to become urbanized. Living in the city, you need your natural retreats. My least favorite thing about DFW is our lack of truly natural areas nearby for weekend camping, retreats, and outdoor activities. We have plenty of reservoirs, but none with the hills and trees landscape that surrounds Beaver Lake. There's not a nature area within 250 miles of Dallas that compares to Beaver Lake and the surrounding terrain.

My preference would be for 90% of the shoreline to be government property and protected from all development to enhance both water quality and maintain its rural, natural character.

I guess I could always live deep in the woods surrounded by National Forest. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hadn't really considered that. Water quality issues are very important and anything to improve Beaver Lake's level of water clarity I am all for. When I was a kid it had very clear water, and now its all just dirty looking.

It is a large lake, and I suppose that allowing some high rises wouldn't spoil the views of the vast majority of the lake.

I just feel a slippery slope here, and I'd hate for a larger portion of the area near the lake to become urbanized. Living in the city, you need your natural retreats. My least favorite thing about DFW is our lack of truly natural areas nearby for weekend camping, retreats, and outdoor activities. We have plenty of reservoirs, but none with the hills and trees landscape that surrounds Beaver Lake. There's not a nature area within 250 miles of Dallas that compares to Beaver Lake and the surrounding terrain.

My preference would be for 90% of the shoreline to be government property and protected from all development to enhance both water quality and maintain its rural, natural character.

I guess I could always live deep in the woods surrounded by National Forest. ;)

Yeah I certainly want to have some natural areas near the metro. I think we are lucky to have the setting we do with the Buffalo River and the Boston Mtns so nearby. I certainly wouldn't want suburbia extending out to those places. I just wouldn't mind having some lakefront developments a bit like perhpas what Hot Springs has. I guess Beaver Lake gets chosen first because it's so large and stand out but perhaps we should also look more to developing some of the smaller lakes that aren't our water source as well. I think perhaps the biggest problem with that is that most of the other lakes in the area are so much smaller than Beaver Lake. But I guess if you look at Hot Springs as an example they have Lkae Ouachita which could correspond to Beaver Lake. It's surrounded by the Ouachitas Natl Forest I believe and doesn't have much development on it. The developments they have is on the other lakes near Hot Springs. Not sure how they correspond to some of the other lakes we have. It's too bad we don't have another somewhat larger lake in the area. I don't think Fayetteville will develop it's two bigger lakes anytime in the near future if ever. I know Bella Vista has some smaller lakes. I'm not sure how big Lake Atalanta is up there by Rogers. There isn't much of a trend in creating new lakes either. What do you guys think, should we focus most of our waterfront development on these smaller lakes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say Fayetteville's two biggest lakes, do you mean Lake Fayetteville and Lake Seqouyah? Those two lakes, with Lake Wedington and Lake Wilson are all surrounded by park land I'm pretty sure, so development wouldn't occur I would think right up to those lakes. It seems to me that if there were to be any development next to a lake (aka, something bigger than a pond) it would have to be built strictly by the developer for rec use by the property owners. Like the Bella Vista lakes or the Hot Springs Village lakes. NWA certainly has the topography for making lakes. I wonder if there would ever be a market for another large-scale development like Bella Vista strictly in the NWA area (i.e. not up near the MO border near Branson like Holiday Island, etc.). It's an interesting question though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say Fayetteville's two biggest lakes, do you mean Lake Fayetteville and Lake Seqouyah? Those two lakes, with Lake Wedington and Lake Wilson are all surrounded by park land I'm pretty sure, so development wouldn't occur I would think right up to those lakes. It seems to me that if there were to be any development next to a lake (aka, something bigger than a pond) it would have to be built strictly by the developer for rec use by the property owners. Like the Bella Vista lakes or the Hot Springs Village lakes. NWA certainly has the topography for making lakes. I wonder if there would ever be a market for another large-scale development like Bella Vista strictly in the NWA area (i.e. not up near the MO border near Branson like Holiday Island, etc.). It's an interesting question though

Sorry, yeah I was referring to Lake Fayetteville and Lake Sequoyah, both in the city limits. That and the way Fayetteville is in general I don't think they'll allow any developments on the lakes anytime soon if ever. Masons_dad1 idea of expanding the 'canal' near Lake Fayetteville and developing on it, is a good idea and probalby the only way Fayetteville would allow much development on a waterway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The appeal filed by the 3 adjoining land owners was thrown out on 2/9, at the benton county quorum court! So, the original approval by the planning commission is a go!

I was at the quorum court that night and I have to admit, it was very entertaining. First for all, to my surprise, the majority of the attendees supported the condos - they all had these red shirts that said 'Protect ALL property rights'.

There were three appealant parties, however, only one of them attended the meeting which was Lane and Stacy Gurel. Mr. Gurel is the developer of Lakeview Estates which adjoins the proposed Grandview project. One of the reason the appeal was thrown out is because the Gurels are not adjoining land owners, their LLC is. Also, the other two adjoining land owners that filed the appeal wasn't present because they don't even live in NWA and it wasn't feasible for them to make the trip!! What a joke!

From what I witnessed, the entire reason the appeal didn't get any further was due to the failure of Tom Kieklak, the Springdale attorney that represented the appealants. It was his resonponsibility to send out the appeal notice within 15 days, which he failed to do. Also, 23 property owners were not notified. He should have represented the LLC rather than the Gurel but I guess failed to understand how a LLC works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The appeal filed by the 3 adjoining land owners was thrown out on 2/9, at the benton county quorum court! So, the original approval by the planning commission is a go!

I was at the quorum court that night and I have to admit, it was very entertaining. First for all, to my surprise, the majority of the attendees supported the condos - they all had these red shirts that said 'Protect ALL property rights'.

There were three appealant parties, however, only one of them attended the meeting which was Lane and Stacy Gurel. Mr. Gurel is the developer of Lakeview Estates which adjoins the proposed Grandview project. One of the reason the appeal was thrown out is because the Gurels are not adjoining land owners, their LLC is. Also, the other two adjoining land owners that filed the appeal wasn't present because they don't even live in NWA and it wasn't feasible for them to make the trip!! What a joke!

From what I witnessed, the entire reason the appeal didn't get any further was due to the failure of Tom Kieklak, the Springdale attorney that represented the appealants. It was his resonponsibility to send out the appeal notice within 15 days, which he failed to do. Also, 23 property owners were not notified. He should have represented the LLC rather than the Gurel but I guess failed to understand how a LLC works.

Thanks for the update, sounds like good news, for people like us at least. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I witnessed, the entire reason the appeal didn't get any further was due to the failure of Tom Kieklak, the Springdale attorney that represented the appealants. It was his resonponsibility to send out the appeal notice within 15 days, which he failed to do. Also, 23 property owners were not notified. He should have represented the LLC rather than the Gurel but I guess failed to understand how a LLC works.

I remember hearing about how he didn't sent out the appeal within 15 days, Ha, I'm so happy.

But there's still plenty of other hurtles that will come as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.